President Barack Obama has defended his aggressive pursuit and prosecution of certain leakers by arguing that the release of national security secrets can endanger American forces.

But he and his aides have been silent so far on his own administration’s campaign to detail war plans for a series of strikes on Syria that are expected in the coming days. A National Security Council spokeswoman referred questions about whether Obama would launch an investigation into Syria leaking to the Justice Department.

“No comment,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said.

Obama is coming under fire from Republicans, editorialists and even civil libertarians for his seemingly selective outrage — and selective investigation — when it comes to the sharing of American secrets.

The administration has gone after Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, journalists, midlevel federal officials and even Hoss Cartwright, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over various allegations stemming from the release of classified information.

“Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” Obama said in May as he defended criminal probes of leakers. “I make no apologies, and I don’t think the American people would expect me as commander in chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.”

And, in June, McClatchy reported on an administration-wide “Internal Threat Program” designed to get federal employees to spy on each other and report information-sharing abuses.

Fast-forward a few months, and Obama administration officials, eager to make the case that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on his own people and that the United States should launch reprisal strikes against him, have been talking out of school.

Citing a “wide range of officials,” The New York Times reported on Tuesday that an assault would be “limited.” The story further reported “scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea” would be “aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks.” The story included the tidbit that the number of potential targets numbered fewer than 50 — and it wasn’t the week’s only report on operational planning.

The juxtaposition of the recent string of anonymous quote-fueled stories with the administration’s history of cracking down on certain leakers has given fodder to the president’s critics on both the right and the left, particularly as the White House makes the case for launching military strikes.

“This isn’t unique to the Obama administration. It’s a problem that transcends party. But we have expressed concern in the past with selective leaking,” said Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel and policy director in the ACLU’s Washington office. “The administration, because of the way in which the system works, has the ability to, in the case of possibly Syria, leak in its interest. But when you have leaks in the public interest that might be embarrassing, it gets treated as espionage.”

He added that on Syria, “if it’s relatively detailed war plans, even the most aggressive civil libertarian would probably agree that those things can be classified.”

The criticism from Obama’s right has been even more aggressive.

“It’s always possible that all of this leaking about when, how and for how long the U.S. will attack Syria is an elaborate head-fake, like Patton’s ghost army on the eve of D-Day, poised for the assault on Calais,” the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page mused earlier this week.

“But based on this administration’s past behavior, such as the leaked bin Laden raid details, chances are most of this really is the war plan. Which makes us wonder why the administration even bothers to pursue the likes of Edward Snowden when it is giving away its plan of attack to anyone in Damascus with an Internet connection.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama’s 2008 opponent, fumed that “these leaks are just crazy” in an interview on “Fox & Friends” this week. “If I were Bashar Assad, I think I would declare tomorrow a snow day and keep everybody from work.”

Of course, the sources who provided information to the Times and other outlets were, not surprisingly, granted anonymity. Few sources would share such sensitive information if their names were attached to it in print.

One former Obama White House official said it’s too easy to reach the conclusion that the Syria plans were part of a coordinated leak by the administration.

“I think way too often reporters assume a leak is on purpose rather than just a leak,” the former official said. “Unless there’s evidence otherwise, it’s my experience that these things are rarely planned.”

Still, there’s been no talk of looking into who leaked. And some observers have little doubt.

“It’s remarkable. I haven’t seen anything like that in the past,” retired Gen. Paul Eaton of the National Security Network said of the Syria leaking, suggesting it may have been designed to see what reaction the plans would draw from various audiences at home and abroad.